That makes no sense. They didnt get only one run because they played for one run. They loaded the bases with nobody out and couldnt cash in. Thats why they only got one run. Playing for one run got them into position to get more, they just didnt execute.

A successful sacrifice bunt in that situation takes the Indians win expectancy from .5338 to .5380. A walk or a hit (to load the bases) takes it from .5338 to .6836.

How does that make giving up an out a good idea? And the win expectancy program I'm using doesn't take into account that Danks walked the first two batters nor does it take into account that the #3 hitter is at the plate.

Fine, it worked out. Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

Dnthateonthepronk wrote:At some point stats/ numbers become meaningless. In some cases its just overkill always having to explain something numerically or give something a statistical value.

In a game built entirely on stats and numbers, there's a point where they become meaningless?

Yes because numbers geeks(not calling you a numbers geek) become obssessed with trying and feel the need to assign every little aspect a number in order to calculate it into a stat or give it some sort of meaning. Its overkill. Even in a stat driven sport such as baseball you cant quantify and explain everything and eventually you reach a point where the Brainiacs just start spouting intelligent sounding garbage out and nobody questions it because nobody really understands it so we just assume they are right.

Also im not against stats at all. I just think its more of a blend when you evaluate players or game situations.

Dnthateonthepronk wrote:At some point stats/ numbers become meaningless. In some cases its just overkill always having to explain something numerically or give something a statistical value.

In a game built entirely on stats and numbers, there's a point where they become meaningless?

Yes because numbers geeks(not calling you a numbers geek) become obssessed with trying and feel the need to assign every little aspect a number in order to calculate it into a stat or give it some sort of meaning. Its overkill. Even in a stat driven sport such as baseball you cant quantify and explain everything and eventually you reach a point where the Brainiacs just start spouting intelligent sounding garbage out and nobody questions it because nobody really understands it so we just assume they are right.

Also im not against stats at all. I just think its more of a blend when you evaluate players or game situations.

Whatever you say. A lot of people in front offices across the league would vehemently disagree with you.

But, you admitted you don't understand it, so I guess I understand your dissension.

Edit: I'm sure that came off condescending. I assure you it wasn't intended to be.

Last edited by skatingtripods on Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

He's a good second LOOGY. As the primary one, I'd rather have somebody else. Hill's the kind of guy I'd like to use in the 6th or 7th. But give me Lopez, Thatcher, or Wright for the 8th or a huge spot in the 7th. Not even sure I like Outman that much more than Hill. He's not exactly experienced in that role and is a walking injury risk.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

Not many RHP out there that have good splits against LHB. I agree with your overall point, and would like two bullpen arms - a RHP and a LHP, but if we're picking between the two, give me a LOOGY.

As a stats guy though, aren't LOOGY's considered a waste of a roster spot?

Take Joe Thatcher as an example.... he's a guy that, based on appearances to date, is on pace to only pitch another 15 innings this year..... how valuable can a guy truly be to a team when all he's going to give you is 15IP?

That said, we already have a LOOGY so, if we're going to have one, we might as well have a good one.

skatingtripods wrote:A successful sacrifice bunt in that situation takes the Indians win expectancy from .5338 to .5380. A walk or a hit (to load the bases) takes it from .5338 to .6836.

How does that make giving up an out a good idea? And the win expectancy program I'm using doesn't take into account that Danks walked the first two batters nor does it take into account that the #3 hitter is at the plate.

dazindiansfanuk wrote:As a stats guy though, aren't LOOGY's considered a waste of a roster spot?

Take Joe Thatcher as an example.... he's a guy that, based on appearances to date, is on pace to only pitch another 15 innings this year..... how valuable can a guy truly be to a team when all he's going to give you is 15IP?

That said, we already have a LOOGY so, if we're going to have one, we might as well have a good one.

To an extent, but if you're big on platoon splits like I am, I consider them quite valuable. They generally pitch in medium-to-high leverage situations where your best relievers are supposed to pitch. Right now, outside of Perez, there is nobody I want to see in a high leverage situation.

LOOGYs are "replacement-level" in WAR, there's no doubt about that. But sabermetrics is also big on sample size, which LOOGYs clearly don't have.

Sure, you'd ideally like a premier setup guy who can get batters out, no matter how they bat. But, those aren't exactly available right now. So, you do the best you can, which is a matchup guy.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

skatingtripods wrote:A successful sacrifice bunt in that situation takes the Indians win expectancy from .5338 to .5380. A walk or a hit (to load the bases) takes it from .5338 to .6836.

How does that make giving up an out a good idea? And the win expectancy program I'm using doesn't take into account that Danks walked the first two batters nor does it take into account that the #3 hitter is at the plate.

Fine, it worked out. Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

What does a strikeout/flyout/GIDP do for you?

K/flyout goes from .5338 to .4223. GIDP .5338 to .3193.

I'll grant you that K/flyout is certainly more likely than hit/walk.

This is how the discussion should go. It's a risk-reward argument. Personally, I let Kipnis hit and I don't let my #3 hitter bunt there. You, an old school guy, seemingly would.

Dnthateonthepronk wrote:At some point stats/ numbers become meaningless. In some cases its just overkill always having to explain something numerically or give something a statistical value.

In a game built entirely on stats and numbers, there's a point where they become meaningless?

Yes because numbers geeks(not calling you a numbers geek) become obssessed with trying and feel the need to assign every little aspect a number in order to calculate it into a stat or give it some sort of meaning. Its overkill. Even in a stat driven sport such as baseball you cant quantify and explain everything and eventually you reach a point where the Brainiacs just start spouting intelligent sounding garbage out and nobody questions it because nobody really understands it so we just assume they are right.

Also im not against stats at all. I just think its more of a blend when you evaluate players or game situations.

Whatever you say. A lot of people in front offices across the league would vehemently disagree with you.

But, you admitted you don't understand it, so I guess I understand your dissension.

Edit: I'm sure that came off condescending. I assure you it wasn't intended to be.

I believe you are not being condescending.

1. Those front offices are filled with said Brainiacs/egomaniacs so Im going to assume they would but then again I dont believe that all front offices would disagree.

Danks was on top of his game. He had given up one hit in the first 5 innings, and that was questionable. Kipnis struck out both times he faced him. Obviously Kip was not feeling comfortable swinging the bat against this guy so he decided to move the runners so the three right-handed bats coming up behind him (Cabby, Santana, and Reynolds) had a chance to get at least one of them in.

When you look at tens of thousands of situations and crunch the numbers, putting down a bunt right there doesn't do anything for you -on average. But with this specific batter against this specific pitcher it was probably the right move.

I can't believe the Sox manager left Veal in to pitch to Giambi with lefties hitting close to .400 against him. That's asking for a walk-off. He must have had no respect for Giambi. Well, he does now.

The much improved defense in left field this year has saved a number of games. Three nice running catches by Raburn (1) and Brantley (2) on balls that looked like doubles coming off the bat.

Prosecutor wrote:I can't believe the Sox manager left Veal in to pitch to Giambi with lefties hitting close to .400 against him. That's asking for a walk-off. He must have had no respect for Giambi. Well, he does now.

\

Its probably good you cant believe it considering thats not what happened

skatingtripods wrote:I wish I could be one of those front office brainiac/egomaniac people. Would be awesome.

Is it possible these people are too smart for their own good?

The stats look at events in relative isolation- but don't consider them in full context. Let's say you lay down a bunt with your #3 guy. The inning results in one run.

You keep a one run lead into the 8th inning. But your setup man went out to a bar the night before and got his eye mashed in. You have to throw a guy who you normally wouldn't. Said guy gives up 2 runs and you lose by 1.

The stats would support the "sac bunts don't lead to more wins" idea, when in reality is was because of some D-bag name Tanner running his mouth at 2am.

Prosecutor wrote:I can't believe the Sox manager left Veal in to pitch to Giambi with lefties hitting close to .400 against him. That's asking for a walk-off. He must have had no respect for Giambi. Well, he does now.

\

Its probably good you cant believe it considering thats not what happened

Giambi hit the HR against Trancoso

Sorry, you're right, it was Trancoso. Lefties are now hitting .382 off Trancoso. I hope our lefties get to hit against him again this series, but I doubt it.

Speaking of relief pitching, Chris Perez has been awesome lately. I was sure he was going to blow it after Raburn turned a routine single into a triple, but Rage wasn't fazed and got the 3rd out with no drama. That should have been ruled a single and an error, by the way, but scorers don't penalize outfielders when they stupidly try to make difficult catches and let the ball get away for extra bases.